I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
I see the government has reached its target for 20,000 new police officers, a pledge made in the 2019 manifesto.
That's pretty shocking. Govt makes good on manifesto pledge is not something you see every day.
If only the police's reputation wasn't in the gutter this might have positive polling implications for the Cons. It still might.
They’re measuring inputs, rather than outputs.
20,000 more officers working on trivial motoring offences and policing ‘hate crime’ on Twitter - while house burglaries, car thefts and street robberies lead to little interest - isn’t going to go down well with the general public.
Plus there's the new Prime Minister's detachment. On the running machines and Peloton as we speak.
Oh, and the protestors, where the police were telling people not to touch them the other day.
You are weirdly obsessed. Try posting about something else for a change.
You are boring.
Not only boring but stupid. SKS has been leader of the Labour party since April 2020. Does BJO offer an 'explanation' every time the Labour party has improved in the polls in the last 3 years?
When he became leader Labour were about 20 points behind in the polls. People can demand that SKS fans explain when Labour start doing worse than that.
It makes no difference of course but my late father was on a jury once. 2 girls alleging sexual abuse by a step father. In Scotland we need corroboration so you could only convict on both or none. One of the girls was seriously messed up with drugs etc, possibly because of the abuse but a completely unreliable witness. The other was crystal and the jury had no doubt that she had been abused. So they came back not guilty and not proven in the hope that the second complainer understood that she was believed.
Turnout in local elections is about one third. That one third are sufficiently engaged to have I/D, so I can't see it making any difference.
Not sure I would generalise to quite the extent you have but it begs the question of what happens in the general election next year.
On a personal level I'm not voting this year but I'd use my passport if I was. Only problem is that it is up for renewal and I've no idea how long it takes to get a new one nowadays.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
How is it disenfranchisement? They can very easily get ID and most have it already. Are people in Northern Ireland who already have this system disenfranchised? This is hardly gerrymandering or making people wait hours to vote.
Did you not catch my earlier post from Norwich where official Conservative Party literature tells voters in Labour wards they don't need ID?
The very fact that you are relaxed about the whole affair suggests it is to your party political advantage.
SKS has not said he will reverse it has he?
Well according to you he'll never get the opportunity. FWIW you may be right.
I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
Oh yes the Electoral Commission. A body that used to be beyond partisan advantage politics.
Despite looking so similar getting each of those passes has different procedures and levels of scrutiny to obtain it.
For the over 60s pass you have to provide a passport or driving licence, or if you don't have those you have to go to a Post Office with other ID to get a verification letter with other proofs of ID and address.
The over 18s pass doesn't need the initial scrutiny, simply sending a photo and filling in a form on a website is enough.
That's why the over 60s pass is valid and the over 18s pass is not. If the over 18s pass was properly scrutinised it would almost certainly also be acceptable.
So what? Neither should be required. Voting should be a civil right, not a red-tape ridden process requiring one to jump through various administrative hoops.
Those going out to bat for this are going to look very stupid.
When I did my GCSE English literature in 1998 one of the texts was a short story translated from Russian. It was about a boy who is always late for school to the consternation of his teacher who later discovers it is because he spends ages walking through a forest on his way to school.
The story is a lesson on the wonders of nature and was written in the 'optimistic' years after Stalin's death. I do not remember the name but would be grateful to anyone who can tell me!
I don't know that particular story but about 80% of the time the answer to "Who wrote that Russian short story?" Is A. I. Kuprin.
33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.
It's at least arguable: - People without ID were able to vote - People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
WOW! Blast from the past. Nice to see you Mr Loony
33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.
It's at least arguable: - People without ID were able to vote - People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.
I'm sure that plenty of left wing activists will be performatively "denied" the right to vote.
I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
Oh yes the Electoral Commission. A body that used to be beyond partisan advantage politics.
The days before they spent six figures of public money going after Darren Grimes.
Despite looking so similar getting each of those passes has different procedures and levels of scrutiny to obtain it.
For the over 60s pass you have to provide a passport or driving licence, or if you don't have those you have to go to a Post Office with other ID to get a verification letter with other proofs of ID and address.
The over 18s pass doesn't need the initial scrutiny, simply sending a photo and filling in a form on a website is enough.
That's why the over 60s pass is valid and the over 18s pass is not. If the over 18s pass was properly scrutinised it would almost certainly also be acceptable.
So what? Neither should be required. Voting should be a civil right, not a red-tape ridden process requiring one to jump through various administrative hoops.
Those going out to bat for this are going to look very stupid.
I never voiced an opinion on whether or not it is a good idea. I'm merely pointing out that people who think those two passes are basically the same because they look similar are wrong, and banging on about it even though it has been repeatedly explained on here makes people look very stupid.
That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote. 70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.
I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
I could easily see a situation where the old couple stroll down to their local station to vote Conservative, as they always have done, with their polling card in hand, as they always have done. .
The polling card that says "you must have photo ID to vote"?
Turnout in local elections is about one third. That one third are sufficiently engaged to have I/D, so I can't see it making any difference.
Not sure I would generalise to quite the extent you have but it begs the question of what happens in the general election next year.
On a personal level I'm not voting this year but I'd use my passport if I was. Only problem is that it is up for renewal and I've no idea how long it takes to get a new one nowadays.
Expired passports are ok as long as you still look like the photo.
It makes no difference of course but my late father was on a jury once. 2 girls alleging sexual abuse by a step father. In Scotland we need corroboration so you could only convict on both or none. One of the girls was seriously messed up with drugs etc, possibly because of the abuse but a completely unreliable witness. The other was crystal and the jury had no doubt that she had been abused. So they came back not guilty and not proven in the hope that the second complainer understood that she was believed.
So it does have its limited uses.
If you don't have the middle choice available you're pushed to go Guilty or Not Guilty. Hence there will be more of both of those. And given a Guilty is the only verdict leading to conviction this change on the face of it will improve the conviction stats. Is this the main driver of it iyo?
That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote. 70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.
With their poll card?
Polling cards are not a valid form of ID according to the law.
The Government overrode the electoral commission who said requiring the card to be presented would be more than enough verification.
Despite looking so similar getting each of those passes has different procedures and levels of scrutiny to obtain it.
For the over 60s pass you have to provide a passport or driving licence, or if you don't have those you have to go to a Post Office with other ID to get a verification letter with other proofs of ID and address.
The over 18s pass doesn't need the initial scrutiny, simply sending a photo and filling in a form on a website is enough.
That's why the over 60s pass is valid and the over 18s pass is not. If the over 18s pass was properly scrutinised it would almost certainly also be acceptable.
So what? Neither should be required. Voting should be a civil right, not a red-tape ridden process requiring one to jump through various administrative hoops.
Those going out to bat for this are going to look very stupid.
I never voiced an opinion on whether or not it is a good idea. I'm merely pointing out that people who think those two passes are basically the same because they look similar are wrong, and banging on about it even though it has been repeatedly explained on here makes people look very stupid.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
But tax fraud is a known problem, yet there is no requirement for a company registering for VAT in the UK to prove they actually exist at that address. (see recent case of 11,000 Chinese companies sharing an address in Cardiff) Tory double standards.
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote. 70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.
With their poll card?
Polling cards are not a valid form of ID according to the law.
Yes, but that's not my point. See the photos upthread - if you have a poll card you know you need photo ID.
When I did my GCSE English literature in 1998 one of the texts was a short story translated from Russian. It was about a boy who is always late for school to the consternation of his teacher who later discovers it is because he spends ages walking through a forest on his way to school.
The story is a lesson on the wonders of nature and was written in the 'optimistic' years after Stalin's death. I do not remember the name but would be grateful to anyone who can tell me!
I don't know that particular story but about 80% of the time the answer to "Who wrote that Russian short story?" Is A. I. Kuprin.
Thanks but he is too old. I'm sure it was written in the 50s.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.
Just wondering... Are the Tories planning to have tellers at the polling stations this year?
If there are electors who are turned away for lack of voter ID, it would be unfair of them to vent their anger at polling station staff, the police or tellers representing other parties, wouldn't it?
Have the Tories given their tellers a proper briefing - and even made an attempt to carry out a risk management appraisal?
I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
The Electoral Commission recommended it not because they found any personation happening. Their reasoning was that some voters were worried about the integrity of the voting system, and that voter ID would reassure them.
Now, I have only ever heard people worry about the result of an election because of dodgy postal voting, never because of personation at a polling station, so it seems illogical to try and reassure people by doing nothing about postal voting where the worries actually are.
Secondly, I reckon this botched partisan introduction of photo ID for voting in person has already done much more to damage the reputation of the voting system than any concerns people supposedly had about personation in polling stations.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
How is it disenfranchisement? They can very easily get ID and most have it already. Are people in Northern Ireland who already have this system disenfranchised? This is hardly gerrymandering or making people wait hours to vote.
Did you not catch my earlier post from Norwich where official Conservative Party literature tells voters in Labour wards they don't need ID?
The very fact that you are relaxed about the whole affair suggests it is to your party political advantage.
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.
Why do those partisan complainers think their side will be adversely affected?
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?
You need to provide:
Active email address Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university London borough address Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's identity to get a Student Oyster is demonstrable garbage.
Off topic: Why does Ed Sheeran go to the same barber as Boris Johnson?
I went to the same barber as my dad for several years
(most definitely not an allegation of paternity, just an observation on my experiences)
My dad and I used the same barber for years, and it was quite an unusual one as it was a combined barber shop and railway bookshop. He retired a few years back, sadly, as I really wanted my son to get a haircut there.
He seemed to know everyone in the city.
A barber for those interested in a different kind of mullet:
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.
Why do those partisan complainers think their side will be adversely affected?
That's a good question because, as best as I can tell, there's no good evidence for it.
I think the logic (for want of a better word) goes: "Tories are evil, therefore they must be doing this because they will benefit from it, therefore this is voter suppression".
That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote. 70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.
With their poll card?
Polling cards are not a valid form of ID according to the law.
The Government overrode the electoral commission who said requiring the card to be presented would be more than enough verification.
Did the electoral commission say that? It would certainly make the whole thing a lot more reasonable.
I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
The Electoral Commission recommended it not because they found any personation happening. Their reasoning was that some voters were worried about the integrity of the voting system, and that voter ID would reassure them.
Now, I have only ever heard people worry about the result of an election because of dodgy postal voting, never because of personation at a polling station, so it seems illogical to try and reassure people by doing nothing about postal voting where the worries actually are.
Secondly, I reckon this botched partisan introduction of photo ID for voting in person has already done much more to damage the reputation of the voting system than any concerns people supposedly had about personation in polling stations.
Turnout in local elections is about one third. That one third are sufficiently engaged to have I/D, so I can't see it making any difference.
Not sure I would generalise to quite the extent you have but it begs the question of what happens in the general election next year.
On a personal level I'm not voting this year but I'd use my passport if I was. Only problem is that it is up for renewal and I've no idea how long it takes to get a new one nowadays.
I applied for one earlier this year, late January, from abroad. I was surprised that it only took between 2 and 3 weeks for the new one to be delivered. My surprise was that it is black, not at all like the blue of the old passports.
One should add the just because OGH says it's voter suppression doesn't mean. It is.... the Thread header is not Gospel.
Did not Bart post a link showing this was recommended by the Electoral Comission, hardly a bastion of the Tory Party.
As an aside Parties do promote policies aimed at their electoral advantage. The Lib Dems want PR, Labour votes for 16 and 17 year olds.
It was originally driven by the Electoral Commission in 2014, but they look to be in damage limitation mode and are disassociating themselves from the idea.
That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote. 70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.
With their poll card?
Polling cards are not a valid form of ID according to the law.
The Government overrode the electoral commission who said requiring the card to be presented would be more than enough verification.
Did the electoral commission say that? It would certainly make the whole thing a lot more reasonable.
The obvious solution is to print the photo on the poll card. I got a poll card last month for a previous resident of my current flat, should I have been able to use that to vote?
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.
Why do those partisan complainers think their side will be adversely affected?
That's a good question because, as best as I can tell, there's no good evidence for it.
I think the logic (for want of a better word) goes: "Tories are evil, therefore they must be doing this because they will benefit from it, therefore this is voter suppression".
Turnout in local elections is about one third. That one third are sufficiently engaged to have I/D, so I can't see it making any difference.
Not sure I would generalise to quite the extent you have but it begs the question of what happens in the general election next year.
On a personal level I'm not voting this year but I'd use my passport if I was. Only problem is that it is up for renewal and I've no idea how long it takes to get a new one nowadays.
I applied for one earlier this year, late January, from abroad. I was surprised that it only took between 2 and 3 weeks for the new one to be delivered. My surprise was that it is black, not at all like the blue of the old passports.
Look at it on a black background under direct natural light, you'll see it's very dark blue.
I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
Oh yes the Electoral Commission. A body that used to be beyond partisan advantage politics.
Well there are 10 commissioners, 4 of which are appointed to represent political parties (I can see 1 Tory and 1 “smaller parties” representative who was ex SDLP).
The rest look like pretty average senior establishment figures - former head of UK Statistics, etc.
I’m pretty impressed that 1 Tory can bend the entire Electoral Commission to his will!
I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
Individual voter registration, and voter ID, both came originally from the Electoral Commission, following that famous 2005 trial where Richard Mawrey QC, the commissioner, said: "Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising."
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.
Why do those partisan complainers think their side will be adversely affected?
Partisan complainers rarely complain that their side has benefitted from a change.
It makes no difference of course but my late father was on a jury once. 2 girls alleging sexual abuse by a step father. In Scotland we need corroboration so you could only convict on both or none. One of the girls was seriously messed up with drugs etc, possibly because of the abuse but a completely unreliable witness. The other was crystal and the jury had no doubt that she had been abused. So they came back not guilty and not proven in the hope that the second complainer understood that she was believed.
So it does have its limited uses.
If you don't have the middle choice available you're pushed to go Guilty or Not Guilty. Hence there will be more of both of those. And given a Guilty is the only verdict leading to conviction this change on the face of it will improve the conviction stats. Is this the main driver of it iyo?
Yes. I think that some believe that it is a bit of a cop out for the jury. Whether they are right about that is hard to tell. Dundee juries used to be fairly notorious for not proven verdicts, especially on a Friday!
Elections have got to do two things from a fairness point of view. They have to actually be fair, and they have to be seen to be fair.
Take the personation thing that is said to be driving these changes. Nobody sane thinks there is a real problem (lack of prosecutions, huge difficulty of faking enough votes to tip a result). And problems with postal votes are rightly seen as a bigger issue. But being seen to be fair is a valid reason to tighten things up.
But the way the government have gone about it is seen as unfair, partly because of the way that a lot of older people's IDs are being waved through in a way that younger people's ID isn't. And it probably will end up making election results less reflective of the will of the people than they otherwise would be.
Oh, and the "but the Electoral Commission advice" excuse rather went down the toilet when the EC said "please delay this because councils aren't ready";
Whether it's an effective scam by the government, or is one that sees them shooting themselves in the foot, we shall see. Doesn't stop it looking like a scam.
@MrHarryCole 2m Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..
Hopefully the beginning of the end for this weirdo and his political career. Fingers crossed the voters of North West Leicestershire do their duty in Election 24 and rid us of this odd ball...
33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.
It's at least arguable: - People without ID were able to vote - People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.
Yes. Possibly isn't effective in its primary purpose of suppressing the wrong kind of votes. But creates an effective backlash against the people introducing it.
33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.
It's at least arguable: - People without ID were able to vote - People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.
Not sure they could make it much more obvious?
Well, no one wrote to me to tell me!
(May be due to me not having a vote in this round of locals. I've been disenfranchised, due to the local election being last year )
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
Two reasons:
1. The Electoral Commission recommended it 2. The franchise must been seen to be protected as well as being protected
This is not an unreasonable ask. It is not an imposition. It is a fairly basic measure of security. The government have provided a large number of potential alternatives.
(And, yes, we should tighten up postal voting as well)
I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
Oh yes the Electoral Commission. A body that used to be beyond partisan advantage politics.
Well there are 10 commissioners, 4 of which are appointed to represent political parties (I can see 1 Tory and 1 “smaller parties” representative who was ex SDLP).
The rest look like pretty average senior establishment figures - former head of UK Statistics, etc.
I’m pretty impressed that 1 Tory can bend the entire Electoral Commission to his will!
How many of them have a passport or driving license? How many of their friends, relatives and acquantences have a passport or driving license? I'd confidently guess 100% to the first question and 98%+ for the latter.
I don't like the I.D. rules either. I'm not convinced it's going to benefit the Conservatives and don't think that it is some sort of plot.
This all started off with actual fraud in Tower Hamlets in 2015 which resulted in a review of electoral fraud, set up by Cameron, which came up with the recommendations which led to where we are today.
However, I accept that Starmer won the leadership, and I wish him and his team well in securing a GE victory.
Getting rid of the Tories is my priority- what's yours?
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.
PB labourites not good at backing the winner?
Or maybe non-PB labourites not good at backing a winner
ETA: As a wet lettuce centrist LD-sympathiser, I think I'd have voted for Starmer, given the vote. Not quite convinced by Nandy. But I haven't seen a great deal of her.
No, we don't let 'wet lettuce LD-sympathisers' stick their oar into who our leader should be, but he didn't need you as it turned out. It was never in doubt really. Starmer was one of the most solid odds-on shots in recent political betting. Hopefully you troughed some.
I didn't unfortunately Was a bit busy with a newborn child at the time!
SKS served me well on betting markets over the next couple of years though - you might almost say I'm a fan
Following on from @Carlotta's latest update on the Trans wars I ended up with the report commissioned by the University of Essex following their withdrawal of invitations to two speakers who were apparently transphobic.
The report is within this link (itself an apology for the invitation withdrawal) and all is well and good, inclusion this, freedom of speech that.
33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.
It's at least arguable: - People without ID were able to vote - People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.
Yes. Possibly isn't effective in its primary purpose of suppressing the wrong kind of votes. But creates an effective backlash against the people introducing it.
The problem for those associated with this miserable change is that few of the many people who could vote before and still can think, I'm so glad I have to show ID. Whereas everyone of the few who could vote before, and are now prevented from doing so due to lack of ID, are absolutely furious.
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?
You need to provide:
Active email address Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university London borough address Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtue
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
Two reasons:
1. The Electoral Commission recommended it 2. The franchise must been seen to be protected as well as being protected
This is not an unreasonable ask. It is not an imposition. It is a fairly basic measure of security. The government have provided a large number of potential alternatives.
(And, yes, we should tighten up postal voting as well)
The number of people with concerns about voting being fair has surely increased?
Just wondering... Are the Tories planning to have tellers at the polling stations this year?
If there are electors who are turned away for lack of voter ID, it would be unfair of them to vent their anger at polling station staff, the police or tellers representing other parties, wouldn't it?
Have the Tories given their tellers a proper briefing - and even made an attempt to carry out a risk management appraisal?
I also think it is unfair to vent anger against Tories at teh polling station for the Voter ID law when they almost certainly had nothing to do with it.
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?
You need to provide:
Active email address Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university London borough address Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtue
33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.
It's at least arguable: - People without ID were able to vote - People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.
Yes. Possibly isn't effective in its primary purpose of suppressing the wrong kind of votes. But creates an effective backlash against the people introducing it.
The problem for those associated with this miserable change is that few of the many people who could vote before and still can think, I'm so glad I have to show ID. Whereas everyone of the few who could vote before, and are now prevented from doing so due to lack of ID, are absolutely furious.
Any evidence that they are furious? Because if they are furious now, surely they’d be doing something about it while there is still time.
@MrHarryCole 2m Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..
Hopefully the beginning of the end for this weirdo and his political career. Fingers crossed the voters of North West Leicestershire do their duty in Election 24 and rid us of this odd ball...
IIRC, didn't their previous Conservative MP make the news after claiming that he shared a hotel room with another man merely to save money?
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?
You need to provide:
Active email address Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university London borough address Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtue
Aha! So now being shown that your post was completely untrue you move the goalposts.
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.
I think you and I have different views on what constitutes proof.
Me: provide the necessary ID directly to the person doing the verification
You: rely on someone who you have never met and who may or may not have done their job
I agree that I am assuming that the DVLA and the passport office generally conduct their business in a controlled fashion and are more reliable than XY or Z at the Anabob College of Further Education
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?
You need to provide:
Active email address Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university London borough address Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtue
Aha! So now being shown that your post was completely untrue you move the goalposts.
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.
I think you and I have different views on what constitutes proof.
Me: provide the necessary ID directly to the person doing the verification
You: rely on someone who you have never met and who may or may not have done their job
I agree that I am assuming that the DVLA and the passport office generally conduct their business in a controlled fashion and are more reliable than XY or Z at the Anabob College of Further Education
Surely though getting a false student registration and student oyster card is sufficient obstacle to prevent impostors, even if less substantive than a passport?
Following on from @Carlotta's latest update on the Trans wars I ended up with the report commissioned by the University of Essex following their withdrawal of invitations to two speakers who were apparently transphobic.
The report is within this link (itself an apology for the invitation withdrawal) and all is well and good, inclusion this, freedom of speech that.
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
Two reasons:
1. The Electoral Commission recommended it 2. The franchise must been seen to be protected as well as being protected
This is not an unreasonable ask. It is not an imposition. It is a fairly basic measure of security. The government have provided a large number of potential alternatives.
(And, yes, we should tighten up postal voting as well)
The Electoral Commission did not specifically recommend PHOTO ID.
Does anyone really think that if the Conservatives didn't think they would benefit from this that they would be pushing it through without any attempt at cross-party consensus, and rejecting amendments made the House of Lords?
What on earth is meant by "voter suppression"? Why on earth should people who can't prove who they who they say they are be allowed to cheat in voting? You need identification to pick up a parcel or rent a car, why is this any different? It's totally non-partisan and neutral, just common sense and tightening up electoral security, if you ask me.
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?
You need to provide:
Active email address Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university London borough address Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtue
Aha! So now being shown that your post was completely untrue you move the goalposts.
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.
I think you and I have different views on what constitutes proof.
Me: provide the necessary ID directly to the person doing the verification
You: rely on someone who you have never met and who may or may not have done their job
I agree that I am assuming that the DVLA and the passport office generally conduct their business in a controlled fashion and are more reliable than XY or Z at the Anabob College of Further Education
When I applied for my first passport, I had to get my application verified, and a statement that the photo was a true likeness by someone...
...my tutor at university.
Each time I have renewed, it is on the back of that original submission.
So is that any different to a student with a bus pass, verified by their tutor?
33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.
It's at least arguable: - People without ID were able to vote - People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.
Yes. Possibly isn't effective in its primary purpose of suppressing the wrong kind of votes. But creates an effective backlash against the people introducing it.
The problem for those associated with this miserable change is that few of the many people who could vote before and still can think, I'm so glad I have to show ID. Whereas everyone of the few who could vote before, and are now prevented from doing so due to lack of ID, are absolutely furious.
Any evidence that they are furious? Because if they are furious now, surely they’d be doing something about it while there is still time.
OK so we can add a further small group who could vote before and realising they would soon no longer be able to do so, go through unnecessary steps to sort it out. This group is slightly less furious.
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?
You need to provide:
Active email address Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university London borough address Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtue
Aha! So now being shown that your post was completely untrue you move the goalposts.
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.
I think you and I have different views on what constitutes proof.
Me: provide the necessary ID directly to the person doing the verification
You: rely on someone who you have never met and who may or may not have done their job
I agree that I am assuming that the DVLA and the passport office generally conduct their business in a controlled fashion and are more reliable than XY or Z at the Anabob College of Further Education
Surely though getting a false student registration and student oyster card is sufficient obstacle to prevent impostors, even if less substantive than a passport?
The thing I find bizarre is that these organised in-person voting fraudsters who have: - information on the electoral roll - information on who is not going to vote - vast teams of people able to do the actual fraudulent voting while avoiding (at least more than a few) repeated trips to the same polling station - analysis enabling effective targetting of the seats that can be swung in their favour will nonetheless be defeated by an inability to produce fake ID of one of many different forms good enough to fool the person at the polling station (who may have little interest in the process, little time and possibly no exposure to what genuine forms of all the IDs should look like, keeping in mind that expired IDs, possibly with differences to current versions, can also be valid).
It may stop B A Knob from taking his elderly senile neighbour's vote for the lolz, but stopping Fraudcorp from turning a seat or an election? I can't see it.
If this was truly about election integrity then postal voting would have also been cracked down at the same time but since it hasn't Mike's comments are fair.
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
Two reasons:
1. The Electoral Commission recommended it 2. The franchise must been seen to be protected as well as being protected
This is not an unreasonable ask. It is not an imposition. It is a fairly basic measure of security. The government have provided a large number of potential alternatives.
(And, yes, we should tighten up postal voting as well)
The Electoral Commission did not specifically recommend PHOTO ID.
Does anyone really think that if the Conservatives didn't think they would benefit from this that they would be pushing it through without any attempt at cross-party consensus, and rejecting amendments made the House of Lords?
Bearing in mind that registration to vote requires no photo, and there is no means to check on a photo is the right person, why is a photo required for this scheme?
Why not a recent utility* bill and a bank card for example?
*one reason I have stuck to paper bills is to prove ID and address.
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.
If we're into analysing small subsamples, I voted Starmer.
Ah the perfection of my thesis has been spoiled. Still, a PB Labour leadership election would have been a Nandslide, I think.
Yes but I don't think the LP would be in such a strong position today. Starmer is much more of a problem to the CP than Nandy would have been IMO.
I'm happy enough with SKS but my hunch is Nandy would have been a touch better. She's more 'relatable', more 'likable', and these qualities do count a lot in politics, rightly or wrongly (imv the latter).
Comments
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
So it does have its limited uses.
On a personal level I'm not voting this year but I'd use my passport if I was. Only problem is that it is up for renewal and I've no idea how long it takes to get a new one nowadays.
Those going out to bat for this are going to look very stupid.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9187/CBP-9187.pdf
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
I wonder why?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/26/british-nato-fighter-jets-russian-warplanes-baltic-sea/
The Government overrode the electoral commission who said requiring the card to be presented would be more than enough verification.
Tory double standards.
Dame Edna on Wogan with Mr and Mrs Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKphnyDkNqY
Donald does his usual thing of the time about how the US is being taking advantage of by Japan etc.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
2m
Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..
I wonder why?
The final figures are in: just 63,279 people met last night's 5pm deadline to apply for new Voter ID.
That's a tiny 3% of the 2 MILLION people who lack the right ID to vote under the Govt's new rules.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1651126548680830976
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.
If there are electors who are turned away for lack of voter ID, it would be unfair of them to vent their anger at polling station staff, the police or tellers representing other parties, wouldn't it?
Have the Tories given their tellers a proper briefing - and even made an attempt to carry out a risk management appraisal?
Now, I have only ever heard people worry about the result of an election because of dodgy postal voting, never because of personation at a polling station, so it seems illogical to try and reassure people by doing nothing about postal voting where the worries actually are.
Secondly, I reckon this botched partisan introduction of photo ID for voting in person has already done much more to damage the reputation of the voting system than any concerns people supposedly had about personation in polling stations.
Cravenly dumping on someone because they simply pointed out a violent rapist is male.
BREAKING: Chris Pincher will be standing down at the next election, Sky News understands.
Mr Pincher was elected as a Conservative MP in 2010, but has sat as an independent after allegations of sexual misconduct were made in June last year.
Active email address
Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university
London borough address
Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB
You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's identity to get a Student Oyster is demonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
https://revolutiontrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/DC967594_YLA_Mullet_PB_Northampton_30-07-1983-1320x691.jpg
I think the logic (for want of a better word) goes: "Tories are evil, therefore they must be doing this because they will benefit from it, therefore this is voter suppression".
The rest look like pretty average senior establishment figures - former head of UK Statistics, etc.
I’m pretty impressed that 1 Tory can bend the entire Electoral Commission to his will!
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/about-us/commissioners/our-commissioners
Take the personation thing that is said to be driving these changes. Nobody sane thinks there is a real problem (lack of prosecutions, huge difficulty of faking enough votes to tip a result). And problems with postal votes are rightly seen as a bigger issue. But being seen to be fair is a valid reason to tighten things up.
But the way the government have gone about it is seen as unfair, partly because of the way that a lot of older people's IDs are being waved through in a way that younger people's ID isn't. And it probably will end up making election results less reflective of the will of the people than they otherwise would be.
Oh, and the "but the Electoral Commission advice" excuse rather went down the toilet when the EC said "please delay this because councils aren't ready";
https://www.ft.com/content/3f82a61b-4c51-4d84-8997-ec767f2d34cd
Whether it's an effective scam by the government, or is one that sees them shooting themselves in the foot, we shall see. Doesn't stop it looking like a scam.
Wake up sheeple!
(May be due to me not having a vote in this round of locals. I've been disenfranchised, due to the local election being last year
1. The Electoral Commission recommended it
2. The franchise must been seen to be protected as well as being protected
This is not an unreasonable ask. It is not an imposition. It is a fairly basic measure of security. The government have provided a large number of potential alternatives.
(And, yes, we should tighten up postal voting as well)
This all started off with actual fraud in Tower Hamlets in 2015 which resulted in a review of electoral fraud, set up by Cameron, which came up with the recommendations which led to where we are today.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/02/tower-hamlets-mayor-lutfur-rahman-accused-electoral-fraud-corruption-high-court
https://www.voice4change-england.org/post/tower-hamlets-the-bogeyman-of-uk-electoral-reform
SKS served me well on betting markets over the next couple of years though - you might almost say I'm a fan
The report is within this link (itself an apology for the invitation withdrawal) and all is well and good, inclusion this, freedom of speech that.
https://www.essex.ac.uk/blog/posts/2021/05/17/review-of-two-events-with-external-speakers
But I was surprised to see extended sections of the report redacted. What gives? Why would this have happened? Anyone AL?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27993775.amp
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.
I am not a member so have no vote.
Me: provide the necessary ID directly to the person doing the verification
You: rely on someone who you have never met and who may or may not have done their job
I agree that I am assuming that the DVLA and the passport office generally conduct their business in a controlled fashion and are more reliable than XY or Z at the Anabob College of Further Education
Does anyone really think that if the Conservatives didn't think they would benefit from this that they would be pushing it through without any attempt at cross-party consensus, and rejecting amendments made the House of Lords?
...my tutor at university.
Each time I have renewed, it is on the back of that original submission.
So is that any different to a student with a bus pass, verified by their tutor?
- information on the electoral roll
- information on who is not going to vote
- vast teams of people able to do the actual fraudulent voting while avoiding (at least more than a few) repeated trips to the same polling station
- analysis enabling effective targetting of the seats that can be swung in their favour
will nonetheless be defeated by an inability to produce fake ID of one of many different forms good enough to fool the person at the polling station (who may have little interest in the process, little time and possibly no exposure to what genuine forms of all the IDs should look like, keeping in mind that expired IDs, possibly with differences to current versions, can also be valid).
It may stop B A Knob from taking his elderly senile neighbour's vote for the lolz, but stopping Fraudcorp from turning a seat or an election? I can't see it.
Why not a recent utility* bill and a bank card for example?
*one reason I have stuck to paper bills is to prove ID and address.